process_campaigns
Process all due campaign schedules (includeFailed: true to retry failed ones)
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| includeFailed | No | Also retry failed schedules |
Mailcannon
TDQS
B3.3/5.0
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that includeFailed retries failed schedules, but it doesn't explain what 'process' actually does (e.g., send emails, update statuses), whether the operation is synchronous, or what side effects it has. This is a significant gap for a batch operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with a parenthetical, front-loaded with the verb and object. It's concise and contains no fluff, achieving efficient communication.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple (one optional parameter, no output schema), and the description covers the core action and the includeFailed option. However, it doesn't describe what happens after processing, such as the return value or status updates, and assumes the meaning of 'process' is obvious. This leaves some ambiguity for a batch operation tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema already describes includeFailed as 'Also retry failed schedules', and the description repeats this with 'includeFailed: true to retry failed ones'. Since schema coverage is 100%, the baseline is 3, and the description adds no new meaning beyond what's already structured.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Process') and resource ('all due campaign schedules'), clearly indicating the tool's scope. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling tool 'retry_failed', especially since the includeFailed option overlaps with that tool's purpose.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies when to use the tool (when you want to process all due campaign schedules), but it doesn't provide exclusions or mention alternatives like 'retry_failed' for retrying only failed schedules. There's no guidance on when not to use this tool or how it compares to similar siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Try in Browser
Glama MCP Gateway
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
TDQS
B3.2/5.0
Disambiguation4/5
Most tools target distinct resources and actions, but a few pairs (check_email_spam_score vs check_step_spam_score, get_deliverability vs check_domain_deliverability) have overlapping concerns. However, descriptions clarify the differences, so an agent can distinguish them with careful reading.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with lowercase snake_case. The use of add vs create is a minor style variation but does not create confusion.
Tool Count2/5
At 34 tools, the server exceeds the typical 3-15 tool range and even the 16-25 heavy range. While the broad functionality justifies many tools, the count is likely to make tool selection more difficult for an agent.
Completeness4/5
The tool set covers the full campaign lifecycle including creation, scheduling, processing, and deliverability tracking, plus contact and provider management. Notable gaps include no update_contact or get_campaign by ID, but these are workarounds via list operations.